“The agents at all times maintained [the DVDs] were of child pornography, hence they arrested Carlos,” said Ramos-Vega. “Carlos spent close to 2 months in jail before we were able to convince the judge to release him on bail.”

Luckily for the defendant, he was represented by an attorney who went the extra mile on behalf of his client.

“In the process of investigating the case, we conducted an internet based research on Lupe and were able to find her MySpace account,” said Ramos-Vega. “We wrote Lupe an e-mail explaining the situation and she immediately agreed to help out of the concern that one of her fans might be in trouble.”

Adult performers are not generally known for their selflessness and generosity toward strangers a world away, but the significance of what Fuentes did goes deeper than just taking a plane flight to help out a fan.

“When trial started,” said Ramos-Vega, “the government presented the Lupe DVD and a few other images from the other DVDs that the government understood were also of child pornography. The government presented the testimony of a Special Agent of Immigration and Customs Enforcement that deals with child pornography and child exploitation cases. She testified that Lupe was ‘definitely’ under 18. The government then presented the testimony of a pediatrician who testified that she was 100 percent sure that Lupe was underage.”

After the prosecution rested its case, it was Ramos-Vega’s turn to present witnesses.

“The first witness we called was Lupe,” he said. “She took the stand and despite being very nervous testified so well and explained to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury that she was 19 years old when she performed in the videos for littlelupe.com. She also allowed us to present into evidence copies of her documents showing her date of birth.”

The trial then took a recess to fix a technical problem before the defense screened the DVDs at issue. During the recess, according to Ramos-Vega, the defense consulted with supervisors from the U.S. Attorney’s office and, concluding that their case was fatally flawed, moved to dismiss all the charges

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3887483&forum_id=2\u0026hid=#35359276)

WTF

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3887483&forum_id=2\u0026hid=#35359323)

bunch of fucking retard lawyers and 'experts' pulling each other's cocks, billing taxpayers thousands.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3887483&forum_id=2\u0026hid=#35359387)

Simon wants the Court to direct the government to find evidence that he hopes exists and which would, theoretically, prove exculpatory and material, yet he does not say what the government should look for, where it should look for it, or how it should conduct its search. While Simon is correct that the prosecutor has an obligation to learn of favorable evidence, that obligation is qualified in an important way: it must be "known to the others acting on the government's behalf, including the police." Kyles, 514 U.S. at 437, 115 S.Ct. 1555. What Simon asks the Court to order is a broad, unqualified search for the unknown.

Simon further argues that the Court must order the government to search for exculpatory evidence because the government "is the only entity with the ability to uncover the alerted-to exculpatory evidence...". (Docket No. 47 at 8) As explained above, Simon refers to exculpatory evidence that exists only in the realm of the hypothetical. Simon similarly refers to the defense's hypothetical incapacity to do the research into the actor in the Little Lupe DVD. Simon contends that "the Court is aware, by policy" that "the defense is not even allowed to possess copies of the allegedly infringing images and videos;" that "the defense of Mr. Simon cannot venture into a search to corroborate the information without risking the insertion of pornography, obscene material or even child pornography into" its computer system; and that "the government could even charge the undersigned with a felony sexual offense for just attempting to do a thorough investigation on behalf of his client." (Docket No. 47 at 8) This position is absurd.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3887483&forum_id=2\u0026hid=#35359420)

https://apps.azcorrections.gov/mugshots/174827.jpg

https://inmatedatasearch.azcorrections.gov/PrintInmate.aspx?ID=174827

Prison Release Date 11/01/2173

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3887483&forum_id=2\u0026hid=#35359478)

Unbelievable that the case even went to trial.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3887483&forum_id=2\u0026hid=#35359434)